Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Threshold · 05-26-2002, 01:36 AM

Sorry for 3 posts in a row, but as I re-read some other posts there was one other thing I thought I should share- my opinion on how I think admins *SHOULD* do things.

IMHO, mud admins/owners (hereafter owners) should discuss the issue up front and in detail with any potentially new builder, imm, whatever (hereafter coders). Before anyone actually starts contributing content, I think a wise owner should write up a simple one page statement that details who will own the product of whatever the coder creates. They should email or fax this to the coder, who should then sign it and either fax it back, or scan it and email it back.

For the most part, when a coder chooses to leave a mud, one would hope that the terms of their departure are not so bad that they WANT to take their code. If the coder wishes to leave his/her work behind, everything is just peachy.

If a coder wishes to have his code removed, the owner should (in my opinion) make every effort to grant this request. I think this is especially true in the case of areas, since they are generally a lot easier to remove than major mudlib code.

If a coder wishes to use their code elsewhere, the owner should in almost every case agree to this as well. Opposite from the above, I think this should ALWAYS be honored for non-area code. I think if the coder agrees to let the mud use his/her area, however, the area should not be used elsewhere.

These are all my personal opinions. They are how I think things *should* work on a mud that operates in the standard "hobby" fashion. Basically, I believe that:

1) Areas should move with whoever created them. If the creator wishes to allow it to stay, great. If they want it removed, the owner should almost always remove it. If they want to use it somewhere else, the owner should almost always agree to this.

2) Internal code should be left in place. Removing this type of code is more disruptive (generally) than just removing an area(s). However, I think whoever created this internal code should be free to use it wherever they wish.

05-26-2002, 01:36 AM	#29
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	Sorry for 3 posts in a row, but as I re-read some other posts there was one other thing I thought I should share- my opinion on how I think admins SHOULD do things. IMHO, mud admins/owners (hereafter owners) should discuss the issue up front and in detail with any potentially new builder, imm, whatever (hereafter coders). Before anyone actually starts contributing content, I think a wise owner should write up a simple one page statement that details who will own the product of whatever the coder creates. They should email or fax this to the coder, who should then sign it and either fax it back, or scan it and email it back. For the most part, when a coder chooses to leave a mud, one would hope that the terms of their departure are not so bad that they WANT to take their code. If the coder wishes to leave his/her work behind, everything is just peachy. If a coder wishes to have his code removed, the owner should (in my opinion) make every effort to grant this request. I think this is especially true in the case of areas, since they are generally a lot easier to remove than major mudlib code. If a coder wishes to use their code elsewhere, the owner should in almost every case agree to this as well. Opposite from the above, I think this should ALWAYS be honored for non-area code. I think if the coder agrees to let the mud use his/her area, however, the area should not be used elsewhere. These are all my personal opinions. They are how I think things should work on a mud that operates in the standard "hobby" fashion. Basically, I believe that: 1) Areas should move with whoever created them. If the creator wishes to allow it to stay, great. If they want it removed, the owner should almost always remove it. If they want to use it somewhere else, the owner should almost always agree to this. 2) Internal code should be left in place. Removing this type of code is more disruptive (generally) than just removing an area(s). However, I think whoever created this internal code should be free to use it wherever they wish.